To think there may be a few silent Tory voters amongst the GC contingent

[IrnBruLolly]

Having just skim read both manifestos I'm now wondering if there will be quite a few silent Tory voters from the GC contingent.

Tories are saying they will: 'introduce primary legislation to clarify that the protected characteristic of sex in the Equality Act means biological sex. This will guarantee that single sex services and single sex spaces can be provided, for example in healthcare and sports settings, to ensure women and girls are protected.'

^'We are clear that on fundamental matters of personal identity there should be one approach across the country, so we will also legislate so that an individual can only have one sex in the eyes of the law in the United Kingdom.'^

'Labour are saying they will: 'protect LGBT+ and disabled people by making all existing strands of hate crime an aggravated offence.'

'So-called conversion therapy is abuse – there is no other word for it – so Labour will finally deliver a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, while protecting the freedom for people to explore their sexual orientation and gender identity.'

'We will also modernise, simplify, and reform the intrusive and outdated gender recognition law to a new process. We will remove indignities for trans people who deserve recognition and acceptance; whilst retaining the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a specialist doctor, enabling access to the healthcare pathway.'^

Tbf, they also say 'Labour is proud of our Equality Act and the rights and protections it affords women; we will continue to support the implementation of its single-sex exceptions.'

Thing is, I'm not sure they know what a woman actually is. 🤔

Ah, messed up the formatting (quotation marks around some bits that aren't quotes) but can't edit again.

Apparently, according to a radio commentator, if the winning Party has something in their Manifesto and then tries to implement, traditionally the House of Lords does not oppose.

Is this true?

Or even if it is traditionally, I have a suspicion that conventions have fallen off the table some years ago.

A few? ☺️☺️☺️☺️
and not just in the GC contingent

Sorry should have started post saying thanks for the summary!

You mean as in they won't interfere? They'll let the chosen party fulfil their promises?

It's too little too late. They had their chance from GC voters in 2019.

I won’t be voting Tory regardless. Firstly - they are the party that enabled things to get to their current state. Secondly - if they wanted to do this, why haven’t they done it already? And finally, much as I do think proper separation of gender and sex in law is important, it’s not as important to me as the economy, the NHS, education and a thousand other things that are falling apart and need urgent change.

I think it's likely the Tories are going for the low hanging fruit. However, at least they're doing that as opposed to the opposite.

You mean as in they won't interfere? They'll let the chosen party fulfil their promises?

Not really sure that's partly why I asked. I assumed it meant HoL might try and amend, but would not block.

But then I am sure only last month I heard that even if the Lords try and block by sending back constant amendments, in the end the HoC (especially with a huge majority government party) just goes we dont care what you think so we are sending it back without changes (and will go on doing this)for HoL to accept.

Firstly - they are the party that enabled things to get to their current state.

They didn't, they inherited the GRA and the EA.

Secondly - if they wanted to do this, why haven’t they done it already?

They did try to but due to feed back about impinging on women's rights stopped brining in self id.

And funnily enough things like Covid, Ukraine etc., did take priority.

But thanks to all the women activists we had got to the point that Kemi Badenoch was about to bring in amendments to the EA re defining sex.

The reality is, is that if Labour had been in power, self id would already be now part of law, and may well be once they get back in.

Surely based on endless discussion on here, it is obvious that it has been a long time of pressure that means it shows the Tories are listening to women, and Labour isn't.

PS I am no a Tory voter - but I like to deal in facts. Labour will sell women out.

I really don't think so.
Most people who genuinely care about women's rights also care about things like decriminalisation of rape, women being murdered by their abusers even when the police knew there was a threat, women and children living in poverty etc.
The Tories think its a vote winner but it isn't really. Especially not when they are fighting Reform for the GC votes.

There is no knowing how many people are silently thinking of voting Tory when Labour supporters are metaphorically strutting about and crowing and pecking at anyone who isn't ‘with them’ making it seem unsafe to voice it out loud.

There are Tory voters everywhere, GC or not GC. It’s one of the two main parties in the country (though in a very bad state at the moment). Some people are vocal about who they support, and why they support them. Some aren’t. People make up their minds on all sorts of issues, prioritising some issues over others.
So it’s really pointless speculating.

This is the Salisbury convention.

House of Lords can traditionally adjust manifesto bills, but shouldn't thwart their main (manifesto) provisions.

Of course, they're not bound to put forth bills based on their manifesto commitments in the first place.

I did not know this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salisbury_Convention

"The Salisbury Convention (officially called the Salisbury Doctrine, the Salisbury-Addison Convention or the Salisbury/Addison Convention) is a constitutional convention in the United Kingdom under which the House of Lords should not oppose the second or third reading of any government legislation promised in its election manifesto. The origins of the convention date back to the late 19th century, at which time the Conservatives held a majority in the House of Lords and, with the support of the third Marquess of Salisbury, developed the "Referendal Theory", which applied solely to Liberal legislation, under which the House of Lords could obstruct legislation until it had received majority approval at a general election.[1] This was changed following the landslide Labour Party victory in the 1945 general election, which produced a Labour government seen as having a popular mandate for significant reform, while once again there was a Conservative majority in the House of Lords. The fifth Marquess of Salisbury (grandson of the third) announced that the Lords "would not seek to thwart the main lines of Labour's legislation provided it derived from the party's manifesto for the previous election". From this point, manifesto bills were only to be adjusted by the Lords; however, on non-manifesto bills, the Lords were able to act as they had before."

And funnily enough things like Covid, Ukraine etc., did take priority.

The Tories came to power 9 years before Covid and, if they hadn't been partying so hard, handing PPE contracts to mates and in the Health Minister's case snogging his mistress against the door of his office, they might have been able to do two things at once.

They'd been in power 12 years when Russia invaded Ukraine.

Again, if Johnson hadn't spent a decade partying with Evgeny Lebedev (et al) and handing him a peerage there might have been some time to prioritise other issues.

You (one) would be a fool to believe the Tories on this one. 14 long bloody years and they can F right O.

That plus VAT on schools - I don't like the Tories but feels like my only option - I like Reform even less and it's the only option I have to try to prevent a massive Labour TWAW and private schooling needs to be banned victory.

'So-called conversion therapy is abuse – there is no other word for it – so Labour will finally deliver a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, while protecting the freedom for people to explore their sexual orientation and gender identity.'

This will destroy the bodies of vulnerable people. I'm in a support group with other parents of children with gender dysphoria. Their stories are heartbreaking. Any policital party which prevents exploratory therapy for gender dysphoria, after Cass, is morally repugnant.

Given that polls show that c.22% of the electorate would vote Conservative, you'd expect at least 1/5 of GC feminists to be Tories, silent or otherwise.

It's only the left-wing's assumption that they have the high moral ground, and the bullying that goes with that, that causes silent Tories - one of the reasons that Labour's 2019 defeat was such a surprise.

I agree. I will likely vote Tory for the first time ever for this reason

Men tend to vote Tory more. In 2019 it was 47% of men vs 42% of women. And have you seen the latest polling? 22% may be optimistic.

There are plenty of GC Tory voters! 😂😂

The manifesto says "So-called conversion therapy is abuse – there is no other word for it – so Labour will finally deliver a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, while protecting the freedom for people to explore their sexual orientation and gender identity"

They are definitely not preventing exploratory therapy - they are protecting it.